Writ petition seeking engagement as Gana Sikshyak as a left-out candidate. The court found the Supreme Court's liberty extended only to challenging a rejection order, and no such order was under challenge, so the writ petition was not entertainable and stood dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.11879 of 2024
Bhojaraj Sahu …. Petitioner
Mr. R. C. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others
…. Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Jena, AGA
CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER
15.05.2024
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner inter alia with the following prayer:-
“It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue rule ‘NISI’ calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the petitioner shall not be engaged as “Gana Sikshyak” as a left out candidate on the basis of Resolution dated 16.02.2008 (Annexure-4) and Engagement order dated 07.02.2011 of Sulochana Nayak (Annexure-5, a similarly situated person who was engaged as Gana Sikshyak by the authorities in compliance to the order dated 07.04.2009 of this Hon’ble Court passed in W.P.(C) No.3317 of 2009) and if the opp. parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, make the rule absolute and issue a writ of mandamus directing the opp. parties to engage the petitioner as Gana Sikshyak as a left out candidate on the basis of Resolution
// 2 //
dated 16.02.2008 (Annexure-4) and Engagement order dated 07.02.2011 of Sulochana Nayak (Annexure-5, a similarly situated persons who engaged as Gana Sikshyak by the authority in compliance to the order dated 07.04.2009 of this Hon’ble Court passed in W.P.(C) No.3317 of 2009) and to grant all service and financial benefits to the petitioner within a stipulated time”.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that claiming extension of the benefit as prayed for, Petitioner has already approached Opposite Party No.2 on 12.01.2024 vide Annexure-5 and Opposite Party No.2 be directed to take a decision on the same within a stipulated time period.
5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate on the other hand contended that similar prayer made by similarly situated person was not entertained by this Court in its order dtd.08.05.2024 in W.P.(C) Nos.7924 of 2023 and batch and it is accordingly contended that similar order may be passed.
6. To the submission made by the learned State counsel, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner has been permitted by the Hon’ble Apex Court to file the present Writ Petition and produced copy of the order dtd.20.02.2023 so passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.2183 of 2023.
It is accordingly contended that in view of the liberty granted by the Apex Court, the writ petition with the prayer as made is entertainable.
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
7 . Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the order dtd.20.02.2023, this Court finds that Hon’ble Apex Court while disposing the SLP granted liberty to the present Petitioner along with others to challenge the order of rejection so issued by the concerned authority. But in the present writ petition no order of rejection is under challenge in terms of the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Order dtd.20.02.2023 so passed in SLP (Civil) Diary No.2183 of 2023 is reproduced hereunder:-
“Mr. Randhir Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in pursuant to the representation filed by the petitioners, a rejection order has been issued by the authority and the petitioners would therefore like to challenge such order before the appropriate forum. Accordingly, counsel submits that he will not press this Special Leave Petition.
In view of the above, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed as not pressed reserving the liberty as aforesaid”.
7.1. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition as no order is under challenge in terms of the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
8 . Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge
Digitally Signed Subrat Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 16-May-2024 15:47:49
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition was entertainable when no order of rejection was under challenge despite the Apex Court's liberty to challenge such an order.
Bhojaraj Sahu
State of Odisha & Others
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
